And the point is -- does it matter what is illegal for the Finnish government to do inside foreign nations, when that's basically like envisioning Queens and Brooklyn invading Jersey?
Well, Finland is bordering a nation with largest landmass in the world whose population has historically posed an existential risk to Finns with wars fought on the most centuries since pre-800 AD. It is in the interest of self-preservation to know what your neighbour has parked near your border and what he's up to if a successful suckerpunch will lead to the complete collapse of organized national defense.
If the governments representative lies in court is he not guilty of perjury? I was under the belief statements in court are always made under personal liability.
Since this thread seems to be riddled with the misconception that sovereign immunity grants government blanket immunity to liability for wrongdoing, I feel the need to insert this in a position with better visibility.
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage
Intentional torts
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant (plaintiff). Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels (personal property), and conversion.
Further, in the article talking about the specific Federal Tort Claims Act...
However, the FTCA does not exempt intentional torts for "investigative or law enforcement officers," allowing aggrieved individuals to bring lawsuits
Attacking a civilian owned computer system is definitely violation of property rights.
Also, the action they are taking is directly forbidden in the United States constitution.
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. ...
One threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred. ...
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property"
I'd argue that inserting malware is again, "meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property".
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage
Intentional torts
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort.
Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant (plaintiff). Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels (personal property), and conversion.
Further, in the article talking about the specific Federal Tort Claims Act...
However, the FTCA does not exempt intentional torts for "investigative or law enforcement officers," allowing aggrieved individuals to bring lawsuits
If you believe the MAFIAA's rhetoric the pirates are the solution since they are destroying the jobs of all the hard-working people in the kiddie porn industry.
I was gonna say the same but couldnt come up with a way of saying "think of the children and download kiddie porn" without it coming across the wrong way.
Until hospitals have a constitutional right to let you die if you show up at the emergency room with no insurance, you need to shut the fuck up.
If you have cancer or something else that takes a while to kill you and you dont get treatment until its an acute emergency you might aswell not get it at all...
Seriously, there's no statute that says a government employee who breaks the Constitution goes to jail. Plenty that say he gets fired, but none that say he gets tried in a Court of Law.
That would be the case if the thing they were doing while violating the constution wasn't a crime in on itself. It is possible to get more than 1 year of prison for computer crimes so they would be extraditable.
If a police officer deprives someone of their right to life without the required conditions then the police officer is criminally liable for his actions.
What they do is legal, by definition, unless they have specific Constitutional or statutory bars on that particular behavior. Neither the US nor the UK has ever signed a treaty, or passed a law, that makes hacking in service of the government illegal.
I'll let my google-wiki-fu dazzle you:
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ....
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. ...
One threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred. ...
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property"
In my interpretation of the functionality of our universe sending detectable signals that carry malware in order to gain illicit access does count as physical action.
What makes you think someone needs to pass a separate law for outlawing something for the government? If a CIA operative murders someone in cold blood while on an assignment because he wanted his cool sunglasses, it is still a crime even though there is no law specificly forbidding CIA operatives killing foreigners freely at complete personal discretion.
As far as I am aware attacking private systems with malware is a punishable crime both in US and UK.
The Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi were mainly agencies of internal political repression, although the KGB also spied outside the country as well. Since the targets of surveillance were apparently outside the UK, it isn't really the same. That doesn't mean you can't find it disagreeable.
Even if the anglosphere currently isn't openly corporate fascist that doesn't mean it wont be 5, 10, 15 or 20 years down the road. If they have years worth of supposedly private communiques from people thats is like Stasi's wet dream where the people being repressed write their own profile, willingly. Once the thugs are in power they are not gonna delete that data, they are going to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Creeping?
spying is not hostile.
When you do it by means of actually attacking something, be it a computer system or a person, it is.
Existential risk? Since 800 AD? Wars? Um, Finland has not existed at all as a country during most of that time.
Yes, existential risk to Finns .
Finnic tribe habitation. 800 ad Finnic tribe habitation. 912 ad, also,
Earliest conflicts with Russians during existance of written records.
And by the 14th century we arrive at this
And the point is -- does it matter what is illegal for the Finnish government to do inside foreign nations, when that's basically like envisioning Queens and Brooklyn invading Jersey?
Well, Finland is bordering a nation with largest landmass in the world whose population has historically posed an existential risk to Finns with wars fought on the most centuries since pre-800 AD. It is in the interest of self-preservation to know what your neighbour has parked near your border and what he's up to if a successful suckerpunch will lead to the complete collapse of organized national defense.
For contrast, Finland has a population significantly smaller than New York City.
And the original question was "What country doesn't spy on allies?"
Nice observation there. What country doesn't spy on allies? Are you that naive?
AFAIK it is illegal for Finnish government agents to stage hostile operations inside foreign nations.
Related
They suggest that interbreeding went on between the members of several ancient human-like groups living in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago
So were the offspring of these 'human-like' beings capable of reproduction? If they were, wouldn't they be just "human"?
But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
If the governments representative lies in court is he not guilty of perjury? I was under the belief statements in court are always made under personal liability.
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage
Intentional torts
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort.
Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant (plaintiff). Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels (personal property), and conversion.
Further, in the article talking about the specific Federal Tort Claims Act...
However, the FTCA does not exempt intentional torts for "investigative or law enforcement officers," allowing aggrieved individuals to bring lawsuits
Attacking a civilian owned computer system is definitely violation of property rights.
Also, the action they are taking is directly forbidden in the United States constitution.
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
...
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
...
One threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred.
...
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property"
I'd argue that inserting malware is again, "meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property".
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage
Intentional torts
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant (plaintiff). Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels (personal property), and conversion.
Further, in the article talking about the specific Federal Tort Claims Act...
However, the FTCA does not exempt intentional torts for "investigative or law enforcement officers," allowing aggrieved individuals to bring lawsuits
15 million dollars in equipment was lost. What's the big deal? I'm sure they spend that much in air-conditioning per day.
This time it was unintentional.
If you believe the MAFIAA's rhetoric the pirates are the solution since they are destroying the jobs of all the hard-working people in the kiddie porn industry.
I was gonna say the same but couldnt come up with a way of saying "think of the children and download kiddie porn" without it coming across the wrong way.
Silly peasant, aristocracy have their own set of laws and courts.
Until hospitals have a constitutional right to let you die if you show up at the emergency room with no insurance, you need to shut the fuck up.
If you have cancer or something else that takes a while to kill you and you dont get treatment until its an acute emergency you might aswell not get it at all...
Seriously, there's no statute that says a government employee who breaks the Constitution goes to jail. Plenty that say he gets fired, but none that say he gets tried in a Court of Law.
That would be the case if the thing they were doing while violating the constution wasn't a crime in on itself. It is possible to get more than 1 year of prison for computer crimes so they would be extraditable.
If a police officer deprives someone of their right to life without the required conditions then the police officer is criminally liable for his actions.
we already have alternates to booze and it's called Marijuana. But because it's not physically addictive and doesn't cause horrible health effects
Warning to reader: your milage may vary depending on where you live
Professor David Nutt, the government's chief drug adviser, has been sacked a day after claiming that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
His claims are factual but go against official-opinion-on-the-matter(tm)
What they do is legal, by definition, unless they have specific Constitutional or statutory bars on that particular behavior. Neither the US nor the UK has ever signed a treaty, or passed a law, that makes hacking in service of the government illegal.
I'll let my google-wiki-fu dazzle you:
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
....
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
...
One threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred.
...
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is "some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property"
In my interpretation of the functionality of our universe sending detectable signals that carry malware in order to gain illicit access does count as physical action.
What makes you think someone needs to pass a separate law for outlawing something for the government? If a CIA operative murders someone in cold blood while on an assignment because he wanted his cool sunglasses, it is still a crime even though there is no law specificly forbidding CIA operatives killing foreigners freely at complete personal discretion.
As far as I am aware attacking private systems with malware is a punishable crime both in US and UK.
Actually...
The KGB (Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti) did the external spying, while the NKVD (Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del) did the internal stuff.
Organization that used to be NKVD was castrated in 1950's with arrest of Beria and KGB inherited role of the political police.
Sending malware counts as a crime, not legal surveillance.
If the victims knew the identities of the perpetrators they would be eligible for extradition under the standing treaties.
And when they say they dont do domestic data gathering you shouldn't trust them. NSA was already caught wiht its hand in the cookie jar.
The Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi were mainly agencies of internal political repression, although the KGB also spied outside the country as well. Since the targets of surveillance were apparently outside the UK, it isn't really the same. That doesn't mean you can't find it disagreeable.
Even if the anglosphere currently isn't openly corporate fascist that doesn't mean it wont be 5, 10, 15 or 20 years down the road. If they have years worth of supposedly private communiques from people thats is like Stasi's wet dream where the people being repressed write their own profile, willingly.
Once the thugs are in power they are not gonna delete that data, they are going to use it.
Spoofing websites is on the very low end of the scale of things theyre getting away with..
War crimes and crimes against humanity the Nazis were executed over come to mind.